groove_set_track

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does add two things beyond them: that the change is undoable (pointing at edit_undo) and the concrete playback consequence of false (a straight bass under swung hats). It stops short of saying whether the change is audible immediately during playback.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler: the state being changed comes first and the clarifying example is parenthetical. The trailing 'Undoable.' is a one-word behavioral note that earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter idempotent setter with full schema coverage, annotations and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the relationship to groove_set/the project groove state, which the description never mentions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description genuinely adds meaning the terse schema line ('Follow the groove.') does not: it explains that the boolean toggles groove-following per track and what false sounds like. The track parameter's UUID-vs-index semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its quality.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource precisely — a per-track 'follow the project groove' flag — and the parenthetical distinguishes it from the project-wide groove_set by making clear this affects one track's playback. However, it never states the verb explicitly ('sets'), phrasing it as a question-of-state, and it does not name groove_set/groove_get as the project-level counterparts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for making one track swing or play straight. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. a groove must be defined via groove_set), and no named alternative for the project-wide case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.